But the interesting point is that showing the consequences usually results in more criticism (even though, I agree, it makes more sense your way round). E.g., showing the graphical effects, rather than leaving it off-screen; having people die, rather than magically being okay - these are things which people will claim make it more "violent".
I think a similar game could be done though - something along the lines of Grand Football Hooligan: London.
Or how about, G20 Protest: London - you get the choice of playing either the police or a member of the public. You get to experience good old British tactics, such as kettling, or when that fails, a good old beating them to the ground. You'll face dangerous villains such as people trying to make their way home from work, and protestors armed with digital cameras. Be sure to arrest anyone who asks to see your ID number!
(Disclaimer: I am British. I just hate when politicians start talking about "Britishness", as typically it's a codeword for pushing their own moral or cultural viewpoints, even if it's not in line with the views of everyone who is actually a British citizen.)
Yeah, it's ridiculous isn't it. Whilst I think raising the age for actual child porn to 18 was stupid, one can still make some kind of argument about protecting the participants, but obviously any law on fictional characters can't be about that. The usual argument for fictional images is "But these images will make people want to do it in real life". Even if we agreed with this dubious claim, I'm struggling to see why making people want to have sex with 16-17 year olds is a bad thing. Indeed, surely we should be glad if actual pedophiles were looking at these images, and should perhaps even be flooding the Internet with them, so that - if their claims about images affecting people were really true - they would instead end having sex with adults, not children.
Indeed - and as of 6 April 2010, even a privately made naughty drawing of someone who appears to be 17 will have you sent to prison and put on the SOR.
I fully agree with your rant - and furthermore, this article is in the UK, where 17 is over the age of consent.
It's rather ridiculous - that story has been all over the media, and referenced in stories to do with child abuse, such as the recent demands to force Facebook to have a big red panic button. Not just the tabloids either - places like the BBC have been reporting the murder story, as if she was underage. Yet not one of these places has even noted that the age of consent is actually 16.
It wouldn't have mattered if she was 17, 18, or 50. The problem here was not how old he or she was, but instead the rather more serious point that he murdered her. (I think it's telling that a simple murder is not considered bad - no, we've got to report on someone being 17, even if that's not underage...)
Although note that the particular issue was Wintel was it being a monopoly (and an illegally acting one, at that). The Iphone isn't anywhere remotely near that, not anywhere close - we can be thankful that the market leaders such as Nokia aren't locked down like this.
Unless most of your sites include Flash, you can simply have both Opera Mini, and a full browser (e.g., Opera Mobile, or your phone's built in one) installed too. Not to mention that this story is Opera Mini for the Iphone, and the Iphone still can't even support Flash at all:)
Sure, the C64 was a fantastic machine in its time. But that was the 1980s.
The only thing more annoying than 20 people pointing out that this new machine has completely upgraded technology (and then moaning about it on those grounds) is that we then get a comment from someone who seriously thinks they're releasing exactly the same machine.
I might as well criticise the latest Mac, on the grounds that it runs a slow 68000, and can't even multitask.
They're planning an all-in-one keyboard computer, just like the original C64, and I can pretty much guarantee: it'll flop. The design had good reason back in the 80s, but not so much now
Yeah, no one buys computers combined with keyboards now do they (hint, they outsell desktops these days).
Now sure, it's not going to be a market leader, but I'm not sure it will flop. It's true that the "space saving" desktop PCs tend to be a niche AFAIK, but equally, they've hardly flopped - you can walk into mainstream stores and see them for sale, for example.
Whilst I'm personally not interested in this design, I'd still favour it over combining the computer with the monitor, i.e., what Apple do, and you don't see people moaning about that, nor do they seem to have flopped.
As for the name - well, you're reading it about it, aren't you? Would you be, if they hadn't have used the name? The point you're missing is not how many people today remember the Commodore name, but the fact that the name will give them lots of free advertising and coverage by the media (much like Apple often benefit from).
Indeed, why not? Apple have been doing this for years, putting Apple stickers on PCs and selling them as Macs. Why is it always the Commdore (and Amiga) stories that for some reason this isn't allowed?
Personally I'm running an Amiga with 4 cores, 4GB RAM, NVIDIA graphics and running Windows 7.
Seriously, what's with all these comments - why don't you go and post them to all the Mac stories? Or all the Windows stories, saying how it's not Windows, because Windows was a GUI that ran on DOS?
Let's see, imagine this posted to a story about the latest "Mac":
"TFA says it's an Intel x86 based machine running OS X. The only thing Mac about this thing is that it's got an Apple logo, and even that's a stretch. This is a Mac in name only."
(And I presume you meant Commodore 64 - you seem to be forgetting that Commodore was a company - and they made PCs!)
Yes, thank you Captain Obvious, yes, you are right that just because it shares the trademark doesn't mean it's exactly the same product. Welcome to the world of business - that's how it works for just about everything.
And Macs aren't Macs, Apple are just re-using the trademark. (Different OS, different hardware - it's like Trigger's Broom... "Macs" today are just PCs, no different to this new Commodore 64.)
Which is entirely correct of course, but I don't see your surprise. It's perfectly normal in computing, or indeed all kinds of products, for popular trademarks to be used, even when the underlying technology changes, or even is entirely different.
Or do you think the current Intel Pentiums are like the original? No, they just re-used the trademark for their cut down Core Duos. AMD have now done the same thing with the Athlon trademark.
I'm also curious how this runs at all - did Apple finally catch up with the 1990s by adding Java support? Or did Opera waste the time writing a custom version for the minority of Iphone users, because it can't support that basic standard?
Straw man. Nowhere did he say that they should be allowed in. If an illegal immigrant is caught, sure, feel free to deal with them the same way as normal - but that's got nothing to do with ID cards.
The question was about healthcare. I'm in the UK, and yes, I'm fine with the radical notion of not letting someone bleed to death on the streets just because they haven't got the right identification, even if that means treating people who aren't supposed to be there. If they aren't supposed to be there, you can deal with that afterwards - it doesn't mean they deserve to die.
We don't know the exact rules for store approval process yet, but all information on that so far only mentioned malware and stuff such as "indecency" as reasons for rejection, and nothing even remotely similar to Apple's "no compete" clauses.
That's not really the relevant point though. The problem with Apple's store isn't what their actual policy is (although the fact that they do use it to block any competing applications is all the more a problem). The root problem is the fact that they have control over what you run on your own phone anyway.
So - is it really true that Windows 7 on phones will also run Microsoft approved applications? If so, that's very sad, no matter how liberal their app store policy might be. All the while it was only Apple, it didn't really matter what a small percent of the market was like. Thankfully Microsoft are a niche player in the mobile market too, but it still worries me to see a trend where more and more platforms follow this closed model of computing. And what if Microsoft decide to do this for the desktop?
I'm glad that Nokia are number one - I just hope they stay that way, and don't follow the path of making a closed platform.
It's the Apple precedence - we get front page news when there's so much as a rumour of an Islate, or that they're allegedly ordering some new parts, honest, according to some blog that speculates on a new product. So I'm not surprised at a once in a blue moon story about rumours for the Commodore 64.
But the Windows specific code is stuff that you've learned in lesson 1 (which as I say is the only one that's platform specific) - it's just the basic stuff to set up OpenGL with your OS. The things that you learn in that lesson aren't Windows specific - and if you're not sure how to set up OpenGL with your OS, you shouldn't be doing that lesson yet.
The bottom of the page has links to the Linux code.
Perhaps you need to read his comment, where he said "C++ and OpenGL are both platform agnostic, why do you need the tutorial to be for a specific platform?"
With the exception of the first lesson (which I address in my comment below), can you show me how NeHe's tutorials are only usable on Windows? Or indeed, how they're specific to Windows at all?
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement, yes.
Which according to some people, means the contributors should be entitled to millions of dollars in damages, and the violators should have their Internet action removed, and their website be censored in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
We also hate inappropriate overloading of functions.
But the interesting point is that showing the consequences usually results in more criticism (even though, I agree, it makes more sense your way round). E.g., showing the graphical effects, rather than leaving it off-screen; having people die, rather than magically being okay - these are things which people will claim make it more "violent".
The rest of Europe maybe, but in the UK we still sadly have some of the same attitudes of censorship (the BBFC can even ban games for adults).
I think a similar game could be done though - something along the lines of Grand Football Hooligan: London.
Or how about, G20 Protest: London - you get the choice of playing either the police or a member of the public. You get to experience good old British tactics, such as kettling, or when that fails, a good old beating them to the ground. You'll face dangerous villains such as people trying to make their way home from work, and protestors armed with digital cameras. Be sure to arrest anyone who asks to see your ID number!
(Disclaimer: I am British. I just hate when politicians start talking about "Britishness", as typically it's a codeword for pushing their own moral or cultural viewpoints, even if it's not in line with the views of everyone who is actually a British citizen.)
Yeah, it's ridiculous isn't it. Whilst I think raising the age for actual child porn to 18 was stupid, one can still make some kind of argument about protecting the participants, but obviously any law on fictional characters can't be about that. The usual argument for fictional images is "But these images will make people want to do it in real life". Even if we agreed with this dubious claim, I'm struggling to see why making people want to have sex with 16-17 year olds is a bad thing. Indeed, surely we should be glad if actual pedophiles were looking at these images, and should perhaps even be flooding the Internet with them, so that - if their claims about images affecting people were really true - they would instead end having sex with adults, not children.
The law is part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, btw. It's sad that there's hardly been any coverage or debate, apart from a brief amount of coverage last year. But then the Government already got away with criminalising (even fictional) adult images, despite attempts to opposte it, so I guess laws on images of so-called "children" have no chance being stopped.
Indeed - and as of 6 April 2010, even a privately made naughty drawing of someone who appears to be 17 will have you sent to prison and put on the SOR.
I fully agree with your rant - and furthermore, this article is in the UK, where 17 is over the age of consent.
It's rather ridiculous - that story has been all over the media, and referenced in stories to do with child abuse, such as the recent demands to force Facebook to have a big red panic button. Not just the tabloids either - places like the BBC have been reporting the murder story, as if she was underage. Yet not one of these places has even noted that the age of consent is actually 16.
It wouldn't have mattered if she was 17, 18, or 50. The problem here was not how old he or she was, but instead the rather more serious point that he murdered her. (I think it's telling that a simple murder is not considered bad - no, we've got to report on someone being 17, even if that's not underage...)
At least it's an actual product announcement, and not based on rumour or a blog post, like we get for one particular company.
And one article isn't an advertisement. It's advertising when we get stories every blimmin day about it - like a certain phone...
Although note that the particular issue was Wintel was it being a monopoly (and an illegally acting one, at that). The Iphone isn't anywhere remotely near that, not anywhere close - we can be thankful that the market leaders such as Nokia aren't locked down like this.
Unless most of your sites include Flash, you can simply have both Opera Mini, and a full browser (e.g., Opera Mobile, or your phone's built in one) installed too. Not to mention that this story is Opera Mini for the Iphone, and the Iphone still can't even support Flash at all :)
Sure, the C64 was a fantastic machine in its time. But that was the 1980s.
The only thing more annoying than 20 people pointing out that this new machine has completely upgraded technology (and then moaning about it on those grounds) is that we then get a comment from someone who seriously thinks they're releasing exactly the same machine.
I might as well criticise the latest Mac, on the grounds that it runs a slow 68000, and can't even multitask.
They're planning an all-in-one keyboard computer, just like the original C64, and I can pretty much guarantee: it'll flop. The design had good reason back in the 80s, but not so much now
Yeah, no one buys computers combined with keyboards now do they (hint, they outsell desktops these days).
Now sure, it's not going to be a market leader, but I'm not sure it will flop. It's true that the "space saving" desktop PCs tend to be a niche AFAIK, but equally, they've hardly flopped - you can walk into mainstream stores and see them for sale, for example.
Whilst I'm personally not interested in this design, I'd still favour it over combining the computer with the monitor, i.e., what Apple do, and you don't see people moaning about that, nor do they seem to have flopped.
As for the name - well, you're reading it about it, aren't you? Would you be, if they hadn't have used the name? The point you're missing is not how many people today remember the Commodore name, but the fact that the name will give them lots of free advertising and coverage by the media (much like Apple often benefit from).
And Windows isn't Windows, because it's not a GUI running on DOS.
And Mac OS X isn't Mac OS, it's a completely different OS. Only Linux shares anything in common with the original.
So? I think these points are obvious - and you're only the 20th or so person to point this out.
Indeed, why not? Apple have been doing this for years, putting Apple stickers on PCs and selling them as Macs. Why is it always the Commdore (and Amiga) stories that for some reason this isn't allowed?
Personally I'm running an Amiga with 4 cores, 4GB RAM, NVIDIA graphics and running Windows 7.
I bet the new Macs don't even have 128K of RAM!
Seriously, what's with all these comments - why don't you go and post them to all the Mac stories? Or all the Windows stories, saying how it's not Windows, because Windows was a GUI that ran on DOS?
Let's see, imagine this posted to a story about the latest "Mac":
"TFA says it's an Intel x86 based machine running OS X. The only thing Mac about this thing is that it's got an Apple logo, and even that's a stretch. This is a Mac in name only."
(And I presume you meant Commodore 64 - you seem to be forgetting that Commodore was a company - and they made PCs!)
Yes, thank you Captain Obvious, yes, you are right that just because it shares the trademark doesn't mean it's exactly the same product. Welcome to the world of business - that's how it works for just about everything.
A Mac doesn't have a 68000 processor or a floppy drive.
And Macs aren't Macs, Apple are just re-using the trademark. (Different OS, different hardware - it's like Trigger's Broom... "Macs" today are just PCs, no different to this new Commodore 64.)
Which is entirely correct of course, but I don't see your surprise. It's perfectly normal in computing, or indeed all kinds of products, for popular trademarks to be used, even when the underlying technology changes, or even is entirely different.
Or do you think the current Intel Pentiums are like the original? No, they just re-used the trademark for their cut down Core Duos. AMD have now done the same thing with the Athlon trademark.
I'm also curious how this runs at all - did Apple finally catch up with the 1990s by adding Java support? Or did Opera waste the time writing a custom version for the minority of Iphone users, because it can't support that basic standard?
Straw man. Nowhere did he say that they should be allowed in. If an illegal immigrant is caught, sure, feel free to deal with them the same way as normal - but that's got nothing to do with ID cards.
The question was about healthcare. I'm in the UK, and yes, I'm fine with the radical notion of not letting someone bleed to death on the streets just because they haven't got the right identification, even if that means treating people who aren't supposed to be there. If they aren't supposed to be there, you can deal with that afterwards - it doesn't mean they deserve to die.
We don't know the exact rules for store approval process yet, but all information on that so far only mentioned malware and stuff such as "indecency" as reasons for rejection, and nothing even remotely similar to Apple's "no compete" clauses.
That's not really the relevant point though. The problem with Apple's store isn't what their actual policy is (although the fact that they do use it to block any competing applications is all the more a problem). The root problem is the fact that they have control over what you run on your own phone anyway.
So - is it really true that Windows 7 on phones will also run Microsoft approved applications? If so, that's very sad, no matter how liberal their app store policy might be. All the while it was only Apple, it didn't really matter what a small percent of the market was like. Thankfully Microsoft are a niche player in the mobile market too, but it still worries me to see a trend where more and more platforms follow this closed model of computing. And what if Microsoft decide to do this for the desktop?
I'm glad that Nokia are number one - I just hope they stay that way, and don't follow the path of making a closed platform.
It's the Apple precedence - we get front page news when there's so much as a rumour of an Islate, or that they're allegedly ordering some new parts, honest, according to some blog that speculates on a new product. So I'm not surprised at a once in a blue moon story about rumours for the Commodore 64.
...in fact, that lesson states:
"The CreateGLWindow() and WndProc() code hasn't changed. So I'll skip over it."
So the implementations of those functions aren't covered for any platform, Windows included.
But the Windows specific code is stuff that you've learned in lesson 1 (which as I say is the only one that's platform specific) - it's just the basic stuff to set up OpenGL with your OS. The things that you learn in that lesson aren't Windows specific - and if you're not sure how to set up OpenGL with your OS, you shouldn't be doing that lesson yet.
The bottom of the page has links to the Linux code.
Perhaps you need to read his comment, where he said "C++ and OpenGL are both platform agnostic, why do you need the tutorial to be for a specific platform?"
With the exception of the first lesson (which I address in my comment below), can you show me how NeHe's tutorials are only usable on Windows? Or indeed, how they're specific to Windows at all?
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement, yes.
Which according to some people, means the contributors should be entitled to millions of dollars in damages, and the violators should have their Internet action removed, and their website be censored in the UK.